Economic impact of rescinding H4 EAD will be huge
Quick background: H4 EAD is a work authorization given only to spouses of H1b workers who are waiting for their Green card. The current administration/ USCIS wants to revoke this authorization. "...analysis of the collected data shows that any rule change rescinding employment authorization for H-4 visa holders would result in substantial costs to the U.S. economy as well as Federal and State tax coffers. What’s more, those losses would not be offset at all by any increase in employment and income by domestic workers." http://www.forbes.com/sites/ikebrannon/2019/03/05/at-what-cost-assessing-the-high-cost-of-removing-h-4-visa-holders-from-the-american-workforce/ A perfect example of a lose-lose situation. Please help prevent the rule from being revoked if it does come out for review!
The government's argument is not based on economic impact. It's based on fact that Congress never authorized h4 to work, so its illegal. Not to say that this admin really cares about the law, but in this case it's suits their purpose
Illegal? What kind of plant are you smoking? Executive order is law. If this is illegal, so are hundreds of other executive orders.
Exec order is law? Are we in North Korea?
H4 EAD should not be for all and sundry. Need to establish a clear criteria. It’s NOT a lose lose situation. Please don’t assume immigration is a right. It’s a privilege. Alternative is to put numerical limitations on how many H4 EAD can be issued along with asking H4 to wait in their home country for years. Will that work? All this fad will go away when USCIS brings a rule like that.
I'll restrict the argument to employment based immigration. If we set the guardrails here, immigration is neither a right, nor a privilege. It's a transaction, that is all. US based companies need high skilled workers to keep themselves competitive. US needs them forever economic development. High skilled either need the US for 'better life' and transact their skill for that. They are also taxed without representation. Keep up the privilege argument and you'll see human capital fleeing the US. It's already started. Nobody wants to wait 30 years for their Green Card. US state universities will lose revenue from tuition fees.
H4 is a dependant non immigrant visa relying on spouse who is an H1. It does not matter how much you scream or cry but pretty much a privilege to join your spouse almost immediately in the U.S. calling that as a transaction makes absolutely no sense. Second, all this economy going down when they remove H4 EAD is just plain fear mongering and nothing else.
Does USA need that additional workforce currently? It's like 2-in-1 where latter one is ready to work with lower wage causing disturbance...
Good god! please do read the link. It's from a study done by folks looking at a LOT more economic data points than the two of us.
One thing I never understood why Trump didn't just use an executive order to close the loop hole. It's not like the original authorization went through Congress right ? Or does the existing lawsuit impact this.
The argument that US needs immigrants to grow is shaky. Neither China nor Indian takes in immigrants, they both grow pretty fast
US population would decline without immigration, but China/India will do fine without it
Unlike in the US, college is not prohibitively expensive in China and India. This helps them produce STEM graduates at an unmatched rate, though the quality of the graduates vary. They don't need immigrants to innovate and to create jobs. The US certainly does. Also, they do take in a lot of immigrants.
To begin with, this privilege didn't exist earlier. How can it be computed that it'll result in huge losses? On the contrary, it will allow only the really abled and talented individuals compete for the jobs than having back-door channels to hook up people you know!
Well said. Exactly my thoughts
Because now you have data points to compute from the last 3 years. There may or may not be enough meat on the economic argument bone. But here's food for thought, if there is not enough economiic impact, why change it? What is the downside risk? Stealing American jobs? Bit you just made the argument that there is not enough impact!
Why do you think it’s only for females
Statistically speaking of course, obviously doesn't apply to 100% of the segment in question